Dev behind massive Skyrim multiplayer mod turns their hands to Starfield, gives up because "this game is f***ing trash," uploads everything for someone else to finish

It wasn’t until they ported about 70% of Skyrim Together’s revered code to the Starfield project, though, that they bumped into a problem: “This game is fucking trash.”

“I didn't realize this until after I actually started playing the damn game a week after launch,” they say. “The game is boring, bland, and the main draw of Bethesda games, exploration in a lively and handcrafted world, was completely gone.

The modder started working on it before playing the game. It's kind of funny in a way, but also cool that they wanted to give people multiplayer ASAP.

Thing is Skyrim wasn't particularly handcrafted or lively either, the models for things like dungeons were repeated all the time and the NPC liveliness was lacklustre compared to eurojank games like Gothic.
- After playing elden ring I'm done with Bethesda. Haven't even tried starfeelz
- Not sure why this is downvoted, radiant quests were a big feature in Skyrim, and were technically kinda impressive, but still repetitive. Likewise, quests for the College of Bards were mostly just a dungeon fetch quests and things.
  It's still a great game, but it was great for the bits that were handcrafted.
  But give it 5-10 years and I'd be very interested to see another pass at procedural generation using machine learning, especially dialogue, could open the doors to more creativity than would be possible when doing it all by hand!
- Nothing in any of these games has been particularly hand crafted. They were a big early user of procedural generation.
- Fallout New Vegas was also repetitive in many aspects, mainly because they had limited time and resued assets when they could. Still doesn't mean it's not a fantastic game

Just recently, Xbox boss Phil Spencer said he hopes Starfield will be a 12-year hit, just like Skyrim.

Yeah no fucking shit Phil, the fans would have loved a generation-defining megahit as well! Maybe you should have told Todd to try making the game good as well as marketable?

Maybe you should have told Todd to try making the game good as well as marketable?
But he "Plans to Release a 1st-Party Blockbuster or Highly Anticipated Title Every 3 Months"
There is no place for "when it's done" with this attitude.
The tech debt is just glaring at this point. They need an actual new engine instead of yet another gamebryo rework.
- No, they need a competent dev team. To this day, Valve is using a game engine that is, at its core, the Quake engine from 1996. Goldsrc? Source? Source 2? All increasingly heavily reworked versions of the Quake engine. And they can use it for everything from Alyx to Dota 2! If Valve can do it, why can't Bethesda?

Well, that's not a good sign for Starfield's modding future. Honestly, it feels like post-Skyrim Bethesda just assumes their games will have a robust modding community. Except that for a game to garner that kind of community it has to be, you know, good. Maybe Bethesda hopes paid modding will be the carrot that brings modders to Starfield, but even if that becomes the standard I don't expect many people will want to make mods for a game they don't even enjoy playing.

I think somebody said something on those lines already but there's so much work to do to mod starfield into something good that the whole thing would be like 80% mods by the time you were finished. Unless there's an API it's just going to be mods interacting on top of other mods and the whole thing is going to be a nightmare.
I've looked into it and it's not exactly easy considering how clearly they need modding in order to make the game a success. You would think that it would be in their interest to make it simple but, nope.
They may just actually be that incompetent.
You're not necesarrily wrong, but modders currently have a more difficult time than with Skyrim.
As far as I'm aware, modding tools from Bethesda haven't been released yet, kinda limiting what people can do.
Not that it can't be done, its just more difficult and time consuming than using producer built tools. People were modding games before any one put out tools for that purpose. Notepad and a hex editor can get you a long way if you know what you're doing, at least back then.
I guess I should say this is from the perspective of a PC gamer, primarily. I've used consoles in the past, sure, but my last console was an Xbox 360 and before that a PS2.
- I never thought I would read that someone else had the same last consoles as me, feels good to not be alone there. I recently got a ps3 for the first time about a year ago solely to get the MGS collection and play through MGS4 since it wasn't available anywhere else. Also some gundam games but I haven't gotten around to getting those.
Given that they’ve recently tried to bring back paid mods, I wouldn’t be surprised. I booted up Skyrim last night to see the new store and my god. They REALLY try to push credits on you.
- This bullshit all started with horse armor in Oblivion and sure enough…fucking horse armor in the Skyrim store too. I love playing Fallout and Skyrim with mods but no way am I giving Bethesda more money for them
well, starfield is good. i think the issue may be the toolkit has not been released yet
- I don't think it has to be good (to attract modders). I think it has to be inspiring. And that it most certainly isn't.
- Starfield might have been interesting 15 years ago
Eh, I think time will tell.
Even if Starfield isn't a hit right out of the gate, it's possible it will develop a small but dedicated community that will keep it alive. They could show us some cool stuff in a few years.
To be honest though, I've never really cared for modding.
- Well maybe? Theres a lot of games with tiny mod scenes, but Bethesda was probably hoping for more than what Monster Hunter World got.

Back in 2012 I couldn't put Skyrim down for 2 or 3 playthroughs, even without mods. Of course I'm older now and got less spare time… but I didn't even get past the first few quests in Starfield. I don't know why it doesn't grab me the same way.

Like the other comment says, it's empty, but I mean it in a different way. It has no soul. Skyrim you can feel the passion in the quests, the characters, and the world. Starfield is super bland, despite being a new IP they could have done anything with, and being sci-fi, which the purpose of sci-fi is to critique our current world. It's the most milque toast sci-fi I've seen. It doesn't question the current status-quo, despite corporations literally destroying Earth. You can rarely question authority. The characters all have identical views on everything, and that's the "good" view that doesn't really try to change anything for the better.
Also, the connecting fibers of the game just don't exist. No system really ties into another, besides making money but money is nearly worthless. Nothing seems to have been considered on how to make it function as a cohesive product.
Basically it fails emotionally and technically.
- This is probably my favorite explanation for it.
  It tries to be emotional, at least the main story. But it fucking fails miserably. I think the only part that actually got me feeling dread or interest was going to visit NASA on Earth. That shit was amazing it pisses me off we only spend ONE FUCKING MISSION on that planet and never go back for anything else.
- I think a lot of this stems from doing less with more and vice-versa.
  The passion people put into their creations shows in the tiniest things we don't notice but still affect us. It's why I think some movies can hold up for decades and others feel more like a fad, even if the former has fewer resources to work with and the latter technically 'does more.'
Because its empty. In skyrim you see NPCs having interesting interaction with each other and the PC. In starfield you just quick travel from empty city to empty planet
I'm there too. I was really excited for the game. Didn't watch any promotional material. Have never seen a trailer for the game and stayed away from any media of it. I got bored so fast and I can't force myself to keep playing it as it felt like there was nothing more to see after the first few hours
Theseus' Ship of game development.
It happens with all art.

this game is fucking trash

Sounds about right

lmao

Does Todd Howard know how reviled he is?
- That part where he talks about being made fun of for being in chess club...
  ...it's like no... that's not why people made fun of you, Todd. They made fun of you because you were the twerp claiming your uncle at NASA could get you on a spaceflight and then kept making excuses as to why the final story was your uncle taking you on a regular ass flight. People don't like people who lie painfully obviously for attention and interest.
🎶 Tell me lies. Tell me sweet little lies. 🎶
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
lmao
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
https://youtu.be/3uOPGkEJ56Q?si=sOnBjcJzfRGkHyMn
- Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
  https://piped.video/3uOPGkEJ56Q?si=sOnBjcJzfRGkHyMn
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

Just wanted to chime in that I absolutely love Starfield. I didn't watch any trailers, didn't read any of the hype. It's exactly what I assumed it would be.

I didn't watch any trailers, didn't read any of the hype, had low expectations, and didn't have to buy it...and Starfield still managed to disappoint me.
- Same I got it for free when I built my wife's computer. 😂 I would have refunded it. But it was free with her CPU (7800X3D)
I've only seen people stream it and it looks... like a Bethesda game. Like, to a fault.
I'm reading that's what a lot of people expected, and I'm honestly surprised.
I thought Bethesda would put their jankiness aside and give us something that's wide, deep, and polished. But it really feels like Bethesda has been releasing the same game ever since Daggerfall, just with different skins.
I guess better the devil you know? I'll probably play it at some point when it's finished.
- I’ve only seen people stream it and it looks… like a Bethesda game. Like, to a fault.
  I’m reading that’s what a lot of people expected, and I’m honestly surprised.
  With one massive, at least for me, flaw. Previous Bethesda games had handcrafted maps which invited you to explore every region. There was so much to find in the most unexpected places. Starfield doesn't have that. I mean sure, even on remote desolate planets you can find objects of interest, but in the end they do repeat very quickly. In Starfield the world is much bigger but ultimately less diverse and well built. And to me that's a less appealing game.
  And another smaller problem is that they no longer seem to want to go into the darker stories. The game does have quite some potential of exploring darker themes like the despotic parts of the UC organisation for example. But it never does dive deeper but sticks to the surface. You can imagine that there's much more going on but you don't get to experience this.
- The game may have been 25 years in development, but their AAA standards must have also been from that time.
  There would have been a period of time where Starfield's release would be heralded as one of the greats (probably 2013-2017). But in 2023, it already looked outdated on release.
- I'm also surprised so many people expected it to be just another underwhelming Bethesda game, because that sure was not what they were promising
- It's been years but Daggerfall to me feels like the ideal RPG. They did make it a point to make simpler games after Daggerfall. Beginning with Morrowind, the magic categories slowly got reduced, the skills were intentionally consolidated and reduced in number. That's the reason why the later games sold really well. Starfield still sold well despite the valid criticisms but they should have trended into more complexity for a space game. Bethesda games are the junk food of games (and sports games are Mountain Dew or something).
I did the same and enjoy it. I think it’s embarrassing that a AAA can spend so long on a game and have it basically be fallout in space with very little in the way of innovation. But I also didn’t expect anything more, and it scratches the itch I was wanting it to scratch
- I'd be happy if it was fallout in space, fallout had places to go, little things to stumble upon.
- I feel like AAA games usually aren’t innovative. AAA games have large budgets and therefore need to have mass appeal which usually means a relatively safe existing formula with a lot of the budget going towards graphics and scale (and marketing). That’s not necessarily a bad thing, and I wouldn’t say no innovation happens in AAA games… but it’s not that surprising that they can be a little formulaic.
  Honestly all games are kind of starting to feel the same to me and I’m not sure if it’s what I’m playing, that I’ve played too many games and “seen too much”, or that I need a break or what lol.
I expected it to be No Man's Sky, but worse
- Well, as least you got what you expected. NMS on launch day, but worse.

I played a bit of this game because of game pass. The intro was so jarringly stupid I couldn't be compelled to continue playing.

It doesn’t get better either. The entire main story is just so contrived and boring.
- That's sad to hear.
  I was pleasantly surprised with Fallout 4's story and thought their writing team could keep up the good work.
  I haven't seen it for myself, though.

Hard agree. This game is ridiculously mediocre for a production of this caliber

The gameplay and fights are pretty fun. But the story is boring and the loading screens suck.

Personally I think the moment when Bethesda lost their way was somewhere between Skyrim and the DLC for Skyrim. Maybe its unprecedented commercial success went to their corporate heads.

Maybe. For me it was the original Skyrim paid modding fiasco, because while they did apologize they then went back and tried paid modding again with the Creation Club, with the lame excuse that they were “mini dlc’s”, not actual mods. It was a complete betrayal, and that’s not even mentioning the fact that they’re straight up just doing paid modding now with zero excuses.
Not to mention Fallout 76 with the atomic shop, the shitty bag they tried to scam people with, the whole rum debacle, and ofc their shitty subscription service. I also didn’t love Fallout 4 so that didn’t help either.
And also also, I wasn’t the biggest fan of Fallout 3 either. Hot take, I know, but I prioritize choice and rpg mechanics, and Fallout 3 really didn’t have any outside of “good choice vs comically evil choice”. So to me it always felt like a mediocre fps game with a cool open world. But I’ve always loved Morrowind and New Vegas, and Skyrim’s modding scene has kept me playing for over a decade.
- At least you could blow up megaton. Couldnt have you killing named npcs in starfield, you might miss out on shitty content!

The headline made me think the dev gave up on his huge Skyrim mod set and said Skyrim is trash.

Yeah pretty disappointed in 12 years since skyrim its like the same

I've seen plenty of other mods and that's just 1 person's opinion.

I will say, though: Microsoft are not a content company and never have been. So gaming isn't their core strength.

BTW: I own both an XSX and a PS5, so I don't have an axe to grind.

Cyberpunk 2077 is an actually great game now. Always had the potential to be one, but the devs fucked it up. But at the core, it was still a good game. And then the devs dedicated the time needed to make it actually great. If Starfield becomes the same in a couple of years, what's wrong with picking it up then? Just don't pick it up right now.
- Devs didn't fuck it up management did. The devs knew the game wasn't done but management said release the fuckin game.
- Its nice they bothered to ship the game after two years
- Many of the promised features still have yet to be implemented, and the physics of the game are still janky as fuck.
  Cyberpunk doesn’t get a pass just because half of the list has finally been implemented and the game has been polished…..three fucking years later.
I had zero problems with CP2077 on PC, even from launch. I think most of the fervor was about the poor state of the console versions.
- Right, I had the exact same experience. I see people parroting that it was completely unplayable at lunch, when that's just completely untrue. I also did my first play through as soon as the game came out on PC and had no major issues.
- Similar here. I mean there where some graphical glitches but had a fun time.
And it's now an excellent RPG. What's your point?
Nah, it's not the same. CDPR got cyberpunk to the point where it's an amazing game, even on launch it was a good game. Bethesda will not put that work in, they will rely on modders, and oops, the modders cant be bothered with this hit trash. That means it'll forever be known as a terrible game.
It depends on whether the game improves. Cyberpunk got patched into a decent state, no mans sky as well. I doubt that'll happen with starfield, but maybe.
- I finally started playing Cyberpunk this week and I've been having a blast. I totally skipped it at launch though. That said, I don't have faith Bethesda has what it takes to make Starfield great. They've been a joke for a long time.
At least Starfield was a functional, if boring, videogame at launch
- Cyberpunk was functional at launch, I beat the entire game week one. I experience no game breaking bugs, there were numerous non game breaking bugs but nothing that took me out of the experience much.
  I did my playthrough on the superior PC platform though.
- Cyberpunk has some story telling flaws as well, but people look past that now